Should FIFA impliment the new off-side suggestion?

[pc4th]

FIFA to discuss offisde law change
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=321210&cc=5901

A major change to football's offside law is on the agenda when FIFA's law-makers meet in Cardiff next month.
The proposal, from the Football Association of Wales, is that a player can only be offside if they are in the opponent's penalty area.

One possible benefits from this is that defenders will stay back more which will leave space for midfielders/attackers to roam in the midfield thus opening the game up which could lead to more attacking soccer.

I think FIFA should experiment with it. If it works (more entertaining for the fans, after all the game is about the fans right?) then FIFA should impliment it world-wide. However, select a league for this experiement. I am sure there are some leagues that would like to volunteer. Hopefully, MLS will not be this guinea pig since if it doesn't work, everyone will blame it as an 'American stupid invention' instead of a 'British one.'


If it works, I believe MLS would benefit the most since this rule change would (in theory) give attacking players more chances to score goals. More goals = more fans (at least in America).

[Delsocfan]

No, I think this is a little too extreme you could have 6 or 7 players spending the whole game standing on the edge of the are for a ball to be played through.

If you wanted to modify the rule, maybe you could draw a line across the field say 1/3 the way from the penalty area to the center circle and make that the offsides line.

But honestly I think the game is fine the way it is.

[Dr Jay]

I think they should institute the OPPOSITE.

You CANNOT be offside once the ball is in your opponent's PA.

[Laggard]

It's a horrible idea.

As mentioned, it'll lead to players hanging out at the 18 yard line. And there will be screams from some managers and fans the first time a player like Henry scores after getting a through pass while in a position that previously would have been considered offside.

The law is fine as is.

[Suss]

The part of the rule that needs to be changed is that you can't be offside when your not involved in the play. Suppose a player is offside in a central position, but the ball is played wide. Technically he is not involved in the play. The defenders leave him alone because he is offisides. But then the winger makes a well timed run, suddenly the central striker is behind th ball and open in front of the goal for a tap in. There is no way to defend that and its a major problem with the rule (Van Nisterloy's goal against the Czechs in Euro 2004 is an example).

[king_saladin]

If you wanted to modify the rule, maybe you could draw a line across the field say 1/3 the way from the penalty area to the center circle and make that the offsides line.


That sounds perfect to me.

[Cassano]

This would not make the game entertaining, but more boring. Defenses would just group together in their own box and never even play offside.
They would then block out opposing forwards leading to fewer goals. It's fine as it is.

[dna77054]

the current rule is but, but near impossible to call correctly. The only solutions I can come with would slow down the game.

As for a change, I think that whenever a defender raises his hand to indicate offsides the play should be allowed to continue. We should not reward teams for playing chicken-********** lawyer ball.

[Laggard]

the current rule is but, but near impossible to call correctly. The only solutions I can come with would slow down the game.


One study showed that it's called correctly about 85% of the time.

Another report (Oudejans et al., 2000, vol. 404, p. 33):

Unlike the above study which was theoretical, the Oudejans et al. study used real data from 200 videotaped games from pro leagues in Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, England, Germany and WC98. The study showed 9.3% of the offside calls to be in error

[Cou5]

NO

Back in '93 while playing in the USISL, a variation of this current proposal was attempted. The offside line began 35 yards out in your attacking half of the field. Both sets of forwards would camp out on the line thus stretching the game from 35 to 35. Backs didn't get forward and the midfield was expected to do the grunt work. There was little flow to the game. I hated it, almost as bad as the "short corner". (Any ball that crossed the endline in the box, the corner was taken at the corner of the goal box.)

[Metros#1]

It's a bad idea. A likely scenario would be three forwards will hang out just outside the box. As a result, the defense will have to hold at least 4 defenders back just to cover them. What you end up is mostly 3 vs 3 going up and down the field. Basically, you run your midfielders to the ground without really improving goal scoring chances.

[When Hell Unfreezes]

It was tried - result, defence stays back to mark goal hangers, all the action is in midfield, fewer goals, less goalmouth action!

Leave the fcukin game alone - it's fine as it is - evidenced by every EPL game being sold out! You just need a better understanding :)

[DavidUSA]

Perhaps the law would be better if......the law was changed to read....a player in an offside position cannot play the ball until the ball is played by another player of either side.
At least that change would allow play to continue, rather than being stopped for the freekick.

[dna77054]

One study showed that it's called correctly about 85% of the time.

Another report (Oudejans et al., 2000, vol. 404, p. 33):

Unlike the above study which was theoretical, the Oudejans et al. study used real data from 200 videotaped games from pro leagues in Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, England, Germany and WC98. The study showed 9.3% of the offside calls to be in error

But the question is, what percentage of the really close calls are correct? Really, the obivous ones are not missed and make up alot of the above numbers. It also bugs the hell out of me that, IMHO an overwhelming majority of the mistaken calls are against the offense and not the defence. How many goals have we been robbed of?